Profile of Stug life

Jump back to quoted post22 Mar 2018, 19:25 PMKatitof

Close: PW no contest.
Mid: comparable, luck decides for both, but PW got slight advantage of alpha strike.
Long: Both are equally bad, PW hardly hits anything, Katy hardly hits anything over massive area and for extended time of short salvos.

Jump back to quoted post22 Mar 2018, 18:53 PMSkysTheLimit

Someone may have already made this point, as I have only skimmed this thread, but the side-techs that the allies need for their nades and such isn't always a bad thing. Soviets are the easiest example but getting molotov tech after you opened with say 3-4 cons means you'll have good garrison clearing long before anyone can usually afford a flamethrower.

With the Brits there's no argument. Their side-techs are practically never a vice, as most of them give you access to very unique and powerful options. They don't even need their grenades but now that they're only 10 fuel I can't imagine a reason not to get them.

Jump back to quoted post21 Mar 2018, 08:33 AMthedarkarmadillo

Or OR. now hear me out, they use their AT gun. Its kinda like AT infantry, but with more range, more pen, more damage AND has the added benifit of not being gameplay cancer! Seriously why does there need to be a squad that can attack move armour? Is THE best AT mines not enough to snare up (or outright destroy light tanks) armour without fear of the support infantry detonating it good enough? If the pak40 isnt spooky enough for you you can pick a doctrine with the only weapon in the entire game that can 2 tap medium tanks. Use ambush camo and try more than attack moving across open ground and see how formitable a pair of shreks are then.


Seriously... Askn for a fucking attack movable, retreatable AT gun because the umpteen FANTASTIC anti-tank options ost already has requires more that a toddlers grasp of mouse control.... I have not the foggiest clue how you would survive playing OKW, with half the shreks (on a squishier squad) and a lesser AT gun and multi triggering mines. Or did you drop OKW when shreks were taken from volks because the faction was rendered unplayable?

Jump back to quoted post20 Mar 2018, 23:26 PMgeneral_gawain

Sexton is still crap, buried in a useless commander and no comparison to Priest damage and AOE that was lately buffed while Sexton got no love. Calliope is not meant to fight Jagdtiger or Elephant, but maybe it can help to dislodge its support and open a small window for a flank attack, maybe... Calliope is useless on the bigger maps to reach the stationary artillery way behind the front. Only Priest is a viable option, but you have to spend some more fuel than you would for stationary artillery and so you have less tanks. In addition you binding yourself to always playing that one commander and thats pretty boring. Its a general problem of allies that all the sweet artillery pieces (rocket artillery or self propelled artillery are locked behind a single commander, with the exception of Katiusha but that one is clearly inferior to other choices). So you have decide going for the super heavy tank or that artillery piece. OKW and Wehrmacht can have both because of non-doctrinal units fulfilling that role. This isn't that important in the small 1vs1 and 2vs2 games, because late game is pretty short there. But you really missing some tactical options in the long term 4vs4 games and thats a pity.

Jump back to quoted post19 Mar 2018, 18:30 PMKatitof

Well, he argues tech costs and these do not add up in his favor.

You serious?
Maybe not in this very thread, but yes, officers are pretty much the same thing as ost stuff that other factions have locked behind side tech and despite officers, USA still got side tech, so they are actually a perfect mix to use as an example here as they get both, free tech additions and side upgrades.